send_group_forward_msg

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only repeats the operation implied by the name. It does not explain whether forwarding requires prior message IDs, how the JSON should be structured, or what side effects or permissions are involved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, but it achieves brevity by omitting useful context entirely. It is under-specified rather than efficiently scoped, and the four words restate the tool name without adding substantive information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a forwarding operation with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks critical information: what messages JSON should contain, whether previous message IDs are needed, limits on forwarded content, and what the response looks like. The schema covers parameter names only, not the domain semantics needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The description does not clarify the expected structure of the messages JSON string or the meaning of group_id beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete action and object: 'send' a 'group forward message'. The word 'forward' provides some distinction from sibling tools like send_group_msg, but the description mostly restates the tool name and does not explain what makes a message 'forward' versus a normal group message.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus send_group_msg, send_private_msg, or send_msg. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.